Tertia Pars
35. Christ's Acquired Knowledge: Did He Know All Things, Grow in Knowledge, or Learn from Men? (ST III, Q.12, aa.1–3)
Class of 2009-03-05
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/035-christs-acquired-knowledge-did-he-know-all-things-grow-in/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand all that you've written. Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. I remember coming down late to one of Monsignor Dionne's you know, course it's not the one I was taking, but just you know, hesitate out the door, say go in.

[0:36] I want to be coming late, you know, the great one, senior. Now before we begin here on question twelve here, remember I was saying last time about the connection of the three words on the cross there in Luke, and the way I connected the the two with the third one, right? Because Christ is showing mercy towards what those who have crucified him, right? Father forgive them for they know not what they do, and then mercy on the penitent sinner, right, or penitent thief, and this day shall be with me in paradise and so on, and then he says mercy for himself, right?

[1:21] Father into thy hands I commend my my my spirit, and I was kind of connecting them by saying, blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy, right? So they kind of tie together those three. Well then I was trying to tie together the three in in John, why it's appropriate that those three should be together, and I was seeing a strong connection between the second and the third, because the second was saying I thirst, and this shows both his thirsting for our salvation and therefore his love of us, but also he what hungers to do the will of God, he thirsts to do the will of God, he's also obeying the will of God, right?

[2:02] And it's only because he's suffering out of love for us and in obedience to the Father that his suffering is what meritorious, and therefore he can say that what it is what completed, right? Is consummated right after that, right? Then I was saying, how would you tie in the the behold your Son, you know, behold your Mother, right? Well, still thinking about that, but anyway, a little paragraph here at the end of a encyclical, Pius XI.

[2:36] I've been kind of going through reading his encyclicals, and this is from Miserantissimus. Redemptor, but just the last paragraph where he he brings in the Blessed Virgin,

[2:49] and now lastly he says, may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires. Of ours. For since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished him, and offered him as a victim by the cross, that's a very strong thing. It's almost like he's almost in obedience to her, right, as well as his father, right. So if she offered him as a victim by the cross, well then that ties in very nicely with the other two things said in the Gospel of John.

[3:26] And offered him as a victim by the cross, and then by her mystic union with Christ, and his very spiritual grace, she likewise became, and is piously called a reparatress, eh? So in a sense, she's also what repairing us,

[3:48] trusting in her intercession with Christ, who, whereas he is the one mediator of God and men, chose to make his mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and mediatrix of grace, as an earnest of heavenly gifts and as a token of our paternal affection. We most lovingly impart the apostolic blessing to you etc. Okay. So let's go now to question twelve here, and down to the human knowledge of Christ here.

[4:20] Then we're now to consider about the acquired knowledge of the soul of Christ or the experiential, I'm afraid she could translate experimentali there. Didn't mean to do experiments.

[4:37] And about these four things are asked: whether by this knowledge Christ knew all things; secondly, whether in this knowledge he what progressed; third, whether he learned something from some man;

[4:57] and fourth, whether he took something from the what angels. So let's go to the first one here. To the first one goes forth thus: It seems that by this knowledge, or according to this knowledge, Christ did not know all things.

[5:20] For this knowledge is acquired by experience, but Christ did not what experience all things. Therefore, he did not know by this knowledge all things.

[5:39] Secondly, man acquires knowledge through his senses, but not all sensible things were subject to the bodily senses of Christ. Therefore, according to this knowledge, he did not know what all things.

[5:59] Moreover, the quantity of knowledge is. Observed according to the number of things known. If therefore by this knowledge Christ knew all things, there would be in Him an acquired knowledge equal to the infused knowledge or poured in knowledge, and to the what blessed knowledge, right? Which is unfitting, right? Therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ did not know all things. Maybe he's going to qualify, but since he knew all things by this knowledge, he's going to take that side.

[6:35] But against this is that there's nothing imperfect in Christ as regards the soul. But this knowledge would have been imperfect if by it he did not do all things, because the imperfect is that to which addition can be what made.

[6:52] Therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ did not know all things. Okay, now in the body of the article, I answer. It should be said that acquired knowledge is placed in the soul of Christ, as has been said above in the first general question, if you recall, on account of the what suitability of the acting upon understanding. So you got to know that from the third book of the soul, lest its what action be idle, right?

[7:34] Now, what does the acting upon understanding act upon? What acts upon the images? Separating out something what universal, and therefore something actually understandable that can then act upon the what possible understanding, the undergoing understanding. Now Plato didn't have to have this because he had the what universals existing actually by themselves in the world, right? And therefore they could be known by the understanding. But Aristotle seen that that was nonsense.

[8:14] Then not altogether nonsense, but not true. Then he said there had to be this other power, right? And we to some extent are aware of that power, right? The act of that power.

[8:29] So just as the possible understanding is that by which what it can become all things, but would you translate that in by which it can become? all things. Yeah, that's what Aristotle will say after he's gone through talking about the sensing powers and the understanding powers. He'll say that the soul is in some way all things.

[9:01] So the acting upon understanding is that by which all things can be what made. As is said in the third book about the soul, and therefore, just as by what infused knowledge the soul of Christ knew all those things to which the possible understanding is in any way in ability, potency for, so through what acquired knowledge it knew all those things which are able to be known through the action of the acting upon understanding.

[9:38] So, in our soul, not in our body, right? Are these three powers: the acting upon understanding, the undergoing, what, and then the will, right? And this acting upon understanding would have no what activity at all if Christ didn't have some kind of what experiential. acquired knowledge, and this is what made Thomas change his opinion when he was saying in the what sentences, and he'll see again in the course of this question, you know, admit his his changing his mind, right, just like he did earlier in time.

[10:18] Can I ask a question? I'm having some hard time seeing. So his argument is that he would have this faculty in vain. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. He didn't use it. But if this faculty wasn't actually actualizing the possible intellect, it would also be in vain, right? Yeah, there's. You have to have some activity there to make actually understandable what's in the images, right? Right, and then actualize the possible intellect.

[10:45] Yeah, yeah. But then, how could the possible intellect be actualized if or if already is actualized through the? infused? Well, these are different kinds of knowledge. It has the beatific vision, as we saw before, right? It has infused knowledge, right? And those would be gotten by more like Plato, right? Not not from the the world of forms, but from what God Himself, right? As God directly is acting upon the mind.

[11:11] But he would have through the infused knowledge, he would have science. He would know geometry. Yeah, but he'd know it in a superior way to the way in which I'm knowing it. So because it would be wouldn't be his agent intellect that was making it. Yeah, yeah. Actual. But if he has the science of geometry with infused knowledge, so in other words, his possible intellect, and that's in his possible intellect, right?

[11:39] Yeah. So how could his agent intellect bring anything to actuality in his possible intellect? Well, it would be a different form because by his infused knowledge, he might know many things by one thought, right? Or by one form, which in his acquired knowledge, experiential knowledge, you would have separate what. Right. Thoughts. So it's not the same habit. Yeah. It would be a different habit. Yeah. Infused.

[12:07] Yeah. In a different form. Infused geometry or an infused geometry? Yeah. in a. Different form. Yeah. Oh, infused geometry is different than acquired geometry. It's better. Yeah.

[12:15] And the beatific vision is even better. Yeah, it won't bang for you. I'm just having a hard time understanding what infused geometry would be like. I mean, well, you have no experience of it.

[12:30] Yeah. You have no experience of it. that's the whole point. Yeah. As I mentioned, how DeConnick was talking in an article one time about how this idea of knowing things by limits.

[12:43] You know, if you put a square inside of a circle, right, and you bisect the thing, so you get a polygon that is, I mean, a polygon rather that has got more sides but closer to the circle. And you bisect those, you can go on, right? So you can speak of the what. Circle as the limit of polygons being produced in this way, and therefore by one thought you're knowing, in a sense, what circle and polygon, right?

[13:12] And DeConnick says, now here's our mind striving to be, in its own weak way, right, a little bit like the angelic mind, right, which by one thought would know distinctly what a circle is and what a square is, huh? By normally, you know, the definition of circle in Euclid is one definition in one thought, and the definition of square is another one, right? The definition of, you know, cube is another one, and so on, right?

[13:40] So you need a separate thought, a separate definition for each thing you want to know distinctly, right? You know many things together in a confused way, like figure or something like that, but you can't know distinctly. But here, when you see the circle as a limit of polygons increasing in this way, right? And if you understand what a limit really is, you don't reach it, but you always approach it.

[14:02] Then you see the irreducibility of these two kinds of figures, right? You can never really get a polygon equal to a circle. But you seem to be knowing, right, polygon and circle by the same thought. So he says it's a sign of the decadence of the human mind in the modern world. They were not struck by the fact of what is going on here, right? That in a very, you know, weak way, but nevertheless a real way, our mind is striving to be a bit like the angels in their knowledge, huh?

[14:33] Or what would be for us infused knowledge? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, but if saying he's got his infused geometry, and he hasn't got a required geometry yet. Because. If we were to ask him to do a proof, he would. See, I just have a hard time seeing how if we use your infused geometry to do us a proof. How would it differ from if we asked him to do a proof?

[15:02] Well, an infused knowledge is not going to be discursive. The angels, the angels don't syllogize. They understand what syllogism is, right? And they could, you know, tell you what syllogism is, right? But they don't acquire their knowledge through the discourse, right? I notice in this proemium here, I've seen it many times in Thomas, you know, but it's a beautiful division of discourse there, and discourse ex unum and aliud secundum rem, right?

[15:37] That our reason, right, can know one thing through knowing another thing, and the fourfold distinction that I've mentioned before. I've seen it many times in Thomas. I notice it's here again, right? You can know a effect by its cause, and sometimes reverse, you know the cause by the effect, and you know light by light, and opposite by what? Opposite, right? Okay. And this is kind of, I think, if you think about it, is any other way to know one thing by knowing another thing?

[16:16] Because if there's no dependence of one thing upon the other, right, which involves these two things, cause and effect, and either going either way, but that's because of dependence of one upon the other, right? And if there's no likeness between the two, right,

[16:33] or no opposition between the two, but other way would there be whereby you could know one thing through knowing another? You know, I think you know this is this is a four, right? But sometimes when I'm explaining, you know, the definition of reason there and expanding on on discourse, right? I'll I'll give this fourfold division of discourse, huh, from one thing to another, right? Because it's beautiful, and seems it seems to me to be exhaustive, right?

[17:06] Is any other way of knowing one thing through another? Is any other way in which one thing could be helpful in knowing another? Apart from these four ways, huh? So these are things that's very common when we try to explain ourselves. We often look for a like. It's like this. What is it like? Yeah. That's what we often do why our Lord made all these parables. Because he understands that the kingdom of heaven is like this What is the game of it?

[17:33] Yeah. And to explain us so we can understand. Where was that text? What's the text? It's the first response. Is one was right here. I've said many places in Thomas, right? Okay. So the first objection is saying, well, he didn't experience all things, right? Okay. So to the first, it should be said that knowledge of things now, right, is able to be acquired. This is the ad prima, not only through the experience of those things, right, but also through the experience of some other things.

[18:09] And this is hitting upon the idea that you can know one thing sometimes through knowing another thing. That sounds strange at first, right? Since from the power of the light of the acting upon understanding, man can go what forward to understanding the effect through the causes, huh? And that's we do in geometry, huh? And the causes through effects, which we do especially in natural philosophy, and like similia parisimilia, and contraries through what?

[18:49] Contaries. Opposites through opposites. If thus, therefore, although Christ would not have what experience, experienced all things in the material world, right? From those, nevertheless, that he had experienced, he could what, by his good discursive power of mind, arrive at a knowledge of what, all of them, right? So, quite a quick learner, right? You know, Thomas Aquinas sometimes speculates into this love of Christ for Saint John the Evangelist, right?

[19:22] Why do you have this special love for him? And of course, some Thomas says, well, Christ was a teacher, and a teacher has a love of a you know student who's really a good student, right? You'd better have a student like this, of course. He ends up being teaching you, of course, because we'll find out later on he doesn't learn from another man, right? He gets all his knowledge by what, discovery, right?

[19:46] You know, Aristotle quotes Hesiod who in the Ethics there, and this is this is repeated by by Thomas, repeated by Boethius, repeated by Machiavelli,

[20:03] but Hesiod said first at least that's the first one. we know, he says best of all, he says, is the man who can discover these things himself. Next is the man who can what learn them from the man who discovered them, right? But the man who can neither discover them from himself nor learn them is a what useless useless is what the English translation says. But Thomas, the common commentary, is very charitable.

[20:28] Says useless as far as acquisition of knowledge is concerned. He's even worthless, pretty even that. No, he can shovel out the barn. Yeah, yeah,

[20:40] yeah, yeah. He can work in the kitchen. Yeah. Well, you, you, for me, my playfully, I call the those who can discover something great by themselves. I call them the wits. Those who can not discover them by themselves, but can learn from those who have, we call them the dimwits, right? And then those who can neither discover them nor learn from another, the dimwits. So I pass by myself as a dimwit.

[21:06] I mean, take that in context, please. Yeah. But then, then I make a distinction, you know, between the upper level and the lower level dimwits. Has to be. Yeah. And the upper level dimwits are the ones who know who you can learn from.

[21:23] As the Pope was saying, you know, he can learn more from a year of studying this man than from a lifetime studying the rest, no? Or as he quotes Cajetan, you know, he says in the Summa, there he seems to have inherited the mind of all the Church Fathers, because he so what reverenced them, so respected them. So that's a beautiful division there, but you'll find it in many places in Thomas that he'll distinguish those four ways in which one thing, in a strict sense, now can be known from what another thing in some way, huh?

[21:57] Could I ask again? I'm having a hard time seeing the. It seems to me that what he's saying would go for anything that Christ could know from the common experience of a human being, but we also have this particular experience that we get from microscopes and telescopes. So could could he know from common experience? Could he reason out presence of you know what DNA is, you know?

[22:22] Could he find out? what this subatomic particle comes Yeah. that's what Thomas seems to be saying, you know, what we could know by our, you know, our experimental knowledge, experiential knowledge at any time in history, I suppose, right? Christ, you know, would be ahead of us, right? But so he could reason from just his common experience of subatomic particles and DNA. Maybe so. Maybe so. Maybe so.

[22:47] There were some Greek philosophers who actually did have sort of fledgling subatomic theory in a way that was put together through reason, just as an example of being able without equipment. To reason, pretty profoundly, things like that. Yeah, I don't know Yeah, I'm pretty ignorant about it, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was some sort of notion of yeah, Heisenberg talks about how far the mind can get, you know, just its discursive powers.

[23:22] Okay, now the second argument that not all sensible things were what acting upon his senses, right? To the second should be said that although not all sensible things were subject to the bodily senses of Christ, nevertheless there were to his senses subject some things that are sensible, right? From which, on account of the excellentissimum, the most excellent, huh, power of his reason. Can I remember how Euclid defines that?

[23:55] Euclid, but Shakespeare defines reason, right? Reason as reason, it's the ability for large discourse, right? Looking before and after, so it's defined by discourse, right? When he speaks of the excellentissimum vim rationis, he's taking the discursive power of Christ, what reason? That's what it is. It is the ability for discourse, huh? As Shakespeare defined it, he could what arrive at a knowledge of other things in the fore said way.

[24:22] That's the way in the first primo, right? Just as in seeing the what heavenly bodies, he could comprehend their what powers in the effects which they have in these lower things, which were not even subject to his what senses, son. And for the same reason, from other things he could arrive at a knowledge of other things.

[24:51] Now, what about all things? Oh, he's going to qualify that as we said, right? To the third, it should be said that by this knowledge, the soul of Christ did not know simply simpliciter all things, huh. But those things which, through the light of the acting upon understanding, are knowable for man, whence through this experiential knowledge, he did not know the what what it is, the essences, the natures of the separated substances.

[25:27] That's the angels, son. Ah, nor even what past or future what singulars, which nevertheless he knew through his what infused knowledge, right? So it's not I can do all things, but the things that we're apt to know by proper to this knowledge. Yeah, to this knowledge.

[25:51] Now the second article, Whether according to this acquired experiential. Knowledge, Christ. To what went forth? To the second, thus one goes forth. Thus, it seems that by this knowledge, Christ did not what progress, or in this knowledge, he did not. For just as according to the knowledge of beatitude, the beatific vision that his soul had, or according to the poured-in knowledge, Christ knew all things, so according to this knowledge, we said he knew all things.

[26:35] But according to those sciences, he did not progress, right? Therefore, neither according to what this. Moreover, to go forward is something imperfect, because the perfect does not receive an addition, right? What Augustine said about this piece of master: it's not perfectible, he says, because perfection is imperfectible. That's what he's saying here?

[27:07] But in Christ, one cannot what put or place any imperfect knowledge. Huh? Seems. Therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ did not go forward, progress.

[27:21] More Damascene says, and he's one of these doctors of the universal church, who say that Christ what went forward in wisdom and grace, as receiving some addition, they do not venerate the union, the hypostatic union. Okay, but not to venerate that union is impious. Therefore, it is impious to say that his knowledge receives some what addition, huh? What

[27:54] Thomas is going to soften what Damascene is saying there, obviously. But against this is what is had in Luke two fifty two, that Christ went forward in wisdom and age and what grace Grace before God and men.

[28:15] And Ambrose said that he what went forward according to human what wisdom, huh? So this this is taking now the words more as they are, right? Not to say that you know, like

[28:35] he manifested his knowledge more as he went. No, he actually did progress in knowledge of some kind, right? He's taking it that way, huh? In the subjection, right? And and Thomas will take it in in the in a part of the same article that he did go forward, huh? In his experiential knowledge.

[28:58] But human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human way, right? What is natural to us, to wit, through the light of the acting upon understanding.

[29:09] Therefore, Christ went forward according to what, The knowledge. Oh, so he says, I answer. it should be said, The twofold is the going forward to science. One in its what essence, in so far as the habit of science is what increased. Another in its effect is someone, according to the same and equal habit of science, demonstrates to others first lesser things, and later on, greater things and more subtle things.

[29:49] Now let's stop here. Is that that? But is that that same argument about manifesting, or? Yeah, yeah. The second way is saying that if you say only that second way did he go forward, then he didn't really go forward in his knowledge, right? Okay. Yeah. Okay, but but Nostradamus is going to say now he's going to correct himself as well as as you maybe.

[30:17] Okay, excuse me. Fine. Now, in this second way, it is manifest that Christ went forward in knowledge and grace, just as in what age, huh? Because according to the growth of his age, right, he began to do greater what works, which showed a greater wisdom and grace, huh?

[30:45] But as regards the habit of science, is manifest that the habit of infused now poured in science in him was not what increased, Since from the beginning he fully had all infused what knowledge, and much less would the blessed science in him be able to be what increased. The same is true for us. We get to see God as He is face to face. We won't keep on what growing in that knowledge.

[31:22] Now about the divine science that it cannot be increased—that's knowledge he had in his divine nature, which was shown in what First Parta, change in the God. If therefore, apart from the habit of infused knowledge, there was not in the soul of Christ some habit of acquired knowledge, as what seems to be to some people, and to me at one time it seemed, huh? And again, here a reference down to the.

[31:53] To the what sentences, right? No science or knowledge in Christ would be increased according to its essence, but only what through experience. That is, through the turning of the what intelligible species infused to the what to the images, yeah. And according to this, they say that the knowledge of Christ progressed by what experience, by his turning the intelligible species that are infused, right, to those things which newly he took through his what senses, huh?

[32:37] So, is that saying he's just understanding what he knew already? Well, he's saying, some people are saying this, yeah, yeah. It's like I knew perfectly, you know, by my infused knowledge, what a man is, and oh, here's a man, there's a man, there's a man, right? You see, so I'm not really learning anything, right? But I'm I'm taking my full understand what a man is and and apply it to this thing that's just struck my senses there.

[33:02] Yeah. But then Thomas is going to argue that no, there is some increase in the habit of science itself, right? Yeah, okay. But because it seems inconvenient, right, Unfitting. that some natural understandable act be lacking in Christ, huh?

[33:27] Since to draw out understandable forms from images is a certain natural action of man according to the agent intellect, and the agent intellect in some ways is higher than the possible intellect, as the agent and the patient, huh? It is suitable. It seems that to place this action in Christ, huh? The action of the acting upon understanding. And from this it follows that in the soul of Christ there could be some habit of science, huh?

[34:08] Which through what this separation of species would be able to be what increase. From this, that the agent intellect, after the first understandable forms, certain phantasms, it is able to what abstract others, right? Yeah. So he's changed the opinion about Thomas, huh? You see how hard these questions are. What? See how hard these questions are? Yeah. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

[34:42] So now, when he touched on this before, he just remember that he said he changed. He said in the manifesting business in the general question there, where he divided the three kinds of knowledge, right? Yeah That's question nine I think Yeah. It was a reply to the third one.

[35:43] Yes, it's in the fourth article of the question nine, right? And by the article, after he says that Christ or gives the reason why he thinks that Christ has this experiential knowledge, right? Acquired. And although quamvis aliter alibi elsewhere, scrips serem I have written otherwise, right?

[36:10] So he's admitting that he said something else elsewhere, right? And that's in fact the commentary in the sentences. Mm-hmm. What I'm thinking of is when he used that Luke that scripture quote before, I wrote it down, but didn't use the paper. Yeah, in the ad prima, he's going to say now he's going to understand that word that just says what it says on the surface there, right?

[36:35] That he did progress in some kind of wisdom, right? Human wisdom. But when he the knowledge that the divinity gentile. When he used it before, are you thinking about the quote where it said that it had to do with his not knowing the day or the hour of his coming? No, the day. I remember it was Luke. It was Luke two fifty two. It was the same scripture verse, but he said you understand it as just showing other people,

[37:12] and he said we didn't need to. It's really annoying. I'm used to that. It was a answer to third. Oh, yeah. You know, it might have gone better. Yeah, yeah, that's right. It was grace of Christ. Whether the grace of Christ could increase, and the third objection was that the child Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God. So anyhow, that's question seven, article twelve, objection third.

[38:14] I notice in the ad prima, there he just quotes the first part of that thing, shensi etitate. He did more perfect works to prove himself true man, but it's not stuck anymore. This is interesting. Because he just

[38:48] but Sam's now now is this what is this the thing Mary Sam was getting at, or was he completely different? I think he was maintaining that against the infused knowledge that he didn't have infused knowledge because then he wouldn't be fully human. So, as Brother Thomas gave to me, but I haven't read Maritain myself, so I'm not sure. Yeah, so you know what Saint Thomas saying is here somehow is is increasing in this habit or can increase in this habit.

[39:33] Yeah. Notice the distinction he makes here now, in the ad primum here, right? Because in those knowledge of what beatitude, the beatific vision that Christ has, and in his infused knowledge, he doesn't what progress, right? But what he does in this knowledge, yeah. To the first, therefore, should be said that both the infused knowledge of the soul in Christ, as well as what the blessed knowledge, the beatific vision, was the effect of a agent of infinite power, right?

[40:05] Namely, God, right? Who is able at once he wants to do the whole thing, right? And thus, in neither knowledge, neither of those two knowledges, does Christ go forward, right? But from the beginning, he had it perfect. But the acquired knowledge is only from the acting upon understanding, the agent intellect, which does not do the whole at once, but successively, right?

[40:40] And therefore, according to this knowledge, Christ from the beginning did not what know all things, right? But bit by bit, and after some time, to it in perfect, what age, which is clear from this that the evangelist at the same time says that he progressed in knowledge and age, right? So he takes that as... Yeah. I bet he knew a whole bunch by By time he was 3.

[41:08] 2 years old. By time he was 3, he knew a lot of stuff. Now the second objection is saying, what about the imperfect? Well, he says this knowledge also in Christ was always perfect according to the time, right? Although it is not perfect simply and what? according to nature, and therefore it could what receive growth. So I quoted there from my little grandchild Sophia, right? Lady Wisdom, as I call her.

[41:41] If you're mostly good, you go to heaven. If you're mostly bad, you go to purgatory, right? So pretty perfect knowledge for her age, right? About the age of 2 or something. 3.

[41:55] Now he softens what Damascene says. To the third, it should be said that the words of Damascene are understood as regards those who say simply there is addition to the what? Knowledge of Christ. That is according to any knowledge that he had, right? And especially according to the infused knowledge which is caused in the soul of Christ from his union to the what? Word. Not, however, is it to be understood of the growth of the knowledge which is caused in the natural agent.

[42:28] So now the infused knowledge of Christ and the division of Christ, right, are something granted to him because of his hypostatic union, right? Why this is not because of the hypostatic union, but because he's a man. Right. Yeah, so it's not really infringing upon his what? His respect for the hypostatic union that he has this knowledge increasing. Yeah. So I rest my case, Thomas says. I stand corrected.

[43:01] yeah. But that, that prayer? You know, or correct? You know, it's taken from Thomasus's things. We call upon the angels, right? Stick in the light of our mind, order and arouse us to consider more correctly. So Thomas was aroused to consider more correctly by his guardian angel. huh So I hope our guardian angels will do the same for us. huh

[43:28] I wonder if Saint Bonaventure ever got it Eventually. Eventually he did. What do you say? Well, it's in the footnote of this edition, Saint Thomas says some have said they they break reference to Saint Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, and Albert the Great. All of them. Well, Alexander and Saint Bonaventure. or Excuse me. Albert and Saint Bonaventure on the book of the sentences. A lot of times, Thomasus he disagrees with Albert the Great.

[43:55] I've noticed that, and some have said he doesn't name him by name and saves some respect for his teacher, Albert. Doesn't doesn't say as Albert raves. But this amazing about where was a finger to know. Things

[44:13] of his imagination. Okay. Should we do an article here before I break? Sure. Okay. Now, whether Christ learned something from the men, right? Well, Thomas doesn't want to say he's a dimwit, right? So,

[44:34] to the third one goes forward. Thus, it seems that Christ learned something from men, huh? For it is said in Luke two that they found him in the temple in the middle of doctors questioning them and responding, right? But to ask and to respond is of the of a learner, not necessarily, huh? Therefore, Christ from men learned something, right?

[45:07] Moreover, to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems to be more noble than to acquire it from the senses, because in the soul of man's teaching are the understandable forms in act, right? In sensible things, there are understandable forms only in ability.

[45:28] But Christ took experimental knowledge from sensible things. Therefore, much more would he be able to take knowledge in learning it from what men. Moreover, Christ, according to experimental knowledge, from the beginning did not know all things. he just said in the last article, right? But he he progressed in it. But anyone hearing speech that signifies of another or of something can learn who he doesn't know. Therefore, Christ could learn from men some things which he did not know according to his what knowledge.

[46:10] So risky thing as that is. I come just to try to teach him something there in the in the thing, and I know that already.

[46:24] I remember when one time I figured out this thing here that had bothered me for many years, philosophical question. So I ran down to check it out with Monsignor. Dion. He says, "Okay." And I I began to say, "I know where you're going." He says, "Is it a damn? Can I go there?" I said, "That's what it looked like at Christ, though, right? I know where you're going.

[46:41] I know where you're going." Moreover, Christ, according to what? Oh, that's something. But against this is what is said in Isaiah fifty-five four. Behold, I give you a what? Witness. Yeah. A leader and a preceptor of traditions, but of the preceptor. The one who gives commands, there is not to be taught, but to teach, right? Therefore, Christ did not receive some knowledge to teaching another man, right?

[47:25] It's interesting because that's at least in the Vulgate, I think that's the word that Saint Peter first uses of Christ as preacher. I think. I think when he catches the fish, I think he

[47:40] uses preacher. Depart. I think that's the word. I'll look up. Aristotle says the wise man doesn't learn from others, right? He learns from him.

[47:50] This has got to be if it's really true by Christ. So Thomas says, "I answer: It should be said that in each genus, that which is the first mover is not moved by that species of motion, just as the first thing that alters things this is not itself altered. It's the old knowledge there with the sun not being changed by altering things. But Christ is constituted the head of the church.

[48:23] I was looking at, maybe the 16th there is last talks there, two or three talks there on Saint Paul, right? And he's talking about the Ephesians and the Colossians and those two epistles and how they have a lot of things in common and talking about the head, why he's called the head there. So I just mention that we've talked about this being the head, But

[48:49] Christ has constituted the head of the church, nay, of all men, not just of the church, as has it said above, and not only what all men that he what he sees through some grace, but all who receive from him the teaching of the truth. Whence he himself says, John 18, "And for this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I might give testimony to the what truth."

[49:22] So Thomas quotes at the beginning of my favorite book there, "Summa contra Gentiles," by St. Alphonsus, in the Meditations on the Passion, quotes the other words, "Come to cast fire upon the earth, dilatately, be kindled." But it came for both purposes. But it shows a difference in those two works. And therefore, it was not suitable to his dignity, right, that he be taught by any one of men.

[49:57] So that's pretty clear to Thomas, huh? Now, what if Saint Joseph showed him something? Don't show it to me. I'll figure it out myself. I have, I have a little Lucy there, you know. She'll, you know, I do it myself, you know. I do everything myself, you know. And sometimes she doesn't know quite enough how to do it herself.

[50:29] But yeah. Yeah. Well, what's he says? He only says here in reply to his objections, you know. The first objection, Christ says, that he was questioning, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that, as Origen says, right, the Lord asks not that he might what learn something, but that he might what teach. The one who is questioning. Teach. From which fountain of teaching, from one fountain of teaching, right, flows both to ask them and to answer wisely.

[51:10] Whence there, in the gospel, is said that they were stupefied, huh? Okay. All who heard him, right, upon his prudence and his responses, huh? So it means he was teaching like Socrates does. Yeah. He's cramming math. He studied Plato. He knew all that. Well, he could have read it too. None of this stopping. I mean, there's a Socratic examination there in the what is it, chapter 22 there of Matthew, right?

[51:42] You know, whose son is David? You know, and I mean Christ and he David, and he gets into a apparent contradiction, right? And so how can David call him Lord if he's his his son, right? And so he's doing what Socrates does, right? In Mark's gospel, on that, it says all the people were delighted when he said that. They just left it hanging, but they were delighted.

[52:06] Yeah. Now Socrates admits that is trawl, right? There's something music about this, you know. Okay. Now, what about is it more noble to learn from the, you know? Yeah. Yeah I thought that's Yeah. To second, it should be said that the one who learns from man does not take immediately his knowledge from the understandable forms which are in the mind of the other one, but by means of what sensible vocal sounds, huh?

[52:44] Words, which are the signs of intellectual conceptions, huh? I was reading Julius Caesar there, you know, and Romans friends, Romans countrymen, lend me your ears. He said, "What a beautiful way of you know saying that rather than say you know, you know, listen, yeah, lend me your ears." Isn't that much more vivid, concrete way of you're more apt to pay attention? So he says, "Lend me your ear," right?

[53:14] It's beautiful. It's the beautiful way the things are said. If you read a contemporary now or something like that, you don't run across any lines that you want to remember, you know. Everything that's

[53:29] said, how well that's said, you know, you don't even have that impression, you know, huh? Now, just as vocal sounds formed by men are signs of the understandable knowledge of them, so creatures, right, created by God, are signs of His wisdom. Whence it says in the Book of Ecclesiasticus that God poured His wisdom over all His what works.

[54:01] That's like the second definition of nature. Technic says there is something of an art in things whereby they move to their end. Just therefore as it is more worthy to be taught by God than by men, right? So it is more worthy to get knowledge from sensible creatures. than through the what? Doctrine of man Yeah. Yeah it's very impressive. It makes you respect Saint Anthony because the philosopher from Alexandria went out to see him in the books.

[54:34] I said, "well, where's your books?" And he pointed to nature. This is my book. Now, to the third objection of what? When he learned from another man, as he's progressing, right, from lesser knowledge to more knowledge. To the third, it should be said that Christ went forward in experimental knowledge, as just as he did in age, and just as

[55:01] an opportune age requires, it's required in order that man might get knowledge by what? Discovery. So also that he might get knowledge by what? By learning from another.

[55:15] And the Lord did nothing that did not what fit his his age, right? And therefore, hearing the what speeches of teaching, he did not accommodate his hearing except in that time which he was able through what the road of experience to attain that grade of what science. Hence Gregory says upon Ezekiel. In the twelfth year of age, he was what? Deigning to interrogate. Yeah, men on earth, who according to the use of reason, did not what?

[56:00] Acquire. Hang on. In the twelfth year of age, he deigned to question men on earth, since in the course of reason, the word of doctrine is not vouchsafed before the age of perfection. I guess he's saying because he didn't do it till at the age of twelve, right? You know.

[56:31] Be sufficient. for another way of saying So that maybe wasn't it. He was precocious It was adequate to his age. So is is he saying that because of his age, had he been at the age of reason, meaning say eighteen or twenty one or something like that, that he wouldn't deign to question men? He wouldn't. He wouldn't have gone there to the temple at the age of five or something like that, right?

[57:01] But age of twelve is what? That's when they the yeah they come of age. Yeah. Under the law. So it's inappropriateness at that age that he did it.

[57:15] Take a little break now.